old school 80’s/90’s sci-fi humor. They’d often use some superpower or new tech with “x-ray vision” that can conveniently see through clothes but not skin…
I imagine the rest can be left to your imagination on how that humor was utilized.
I don’t hate tech. But we are definitely in time of techno robber barons who have long drained any benefit of the doubt. Meta especially deserves no grace.
There’s a clear disctinction these days bewteen “Tech” and “Big Tech™️”. This is firmly in the latter.
Are there alternatives outside of paging. I know the risk of texting sensitive information, but I figured there’d be a more modern system than paging.
The term “weed” has no formal scientific status at all,
Sure it does. It’s not astrophysics precise (because biology in general is a “soft science” in many regards), but it has a meaning when you talk about it in the domain.
In botany, a weed is a general term for any plant growing where it is not wanted. Weeds interfere with human activities and compete with crop plants for water, light, and nutrients.
Some weeds can later be found to have previously unknown benefits and be removed from the category, while other cultivated plants can be transplanted to new climates, escape cultivation, and become weeds or invasive species. Thus, the category of weeds is ever-changing, making the term relative.
The general term for the first sentence is what everyone uses colloquially. But the reasoning for it being unwanted is not “because it looks weird”. an otherwise “attractive” plant (like grass) can be a weed in some other context if it’s taking nutrients from more ecologically valuable plants.
It’s ethics and morality applied to a specific situation.
And I agree. But I also agree there is no morality to a polar bear eating your face. That’s just nature. There are lines, I don’t know your specific context.
For me, I was raised removing tumbleweeds. One of the most tenacious and invasive weeds out there. I don’t even think they are native to my country. But I sure hold no remorse pulling them up the same way I would a dandelion (even if me blowing on one is technically spreading it out).
If I was standing there with a gun to your head because I’ve decided you’re offensive to my garden you wouldn’t genuinely believe it’s fine for me to kill you simply because you can’t do anything to stop it.
Sure. Then a man with a bigger gun will at best arrest you and you’d be thrown in jail. We realized human on human violence needs to be regulated to make it as close to zero as possible. The police have a monopoly on unchecked violence, so our options without consequences are limited and discouraged.
There’s a clear and obvious distinction between taking another life as a necessity because you need to eat in order to survive, and killing on a whim because you decide you don’t like how one form of life looks.
Yup.
I’d certainly pay money to watch a bear chasing you down and eating you so that I could witness how much you’re definitely not talking out your ass when saying that you wouldn’t complain about it, because bears needs food.
I’d run. I’d try to defend myself. I’d do my best to preserve my life. But trying to shame a bear seems like a useless endeavor. Thtat’s all I’m trying to get across with my metaphor.
entirely, assuming, incorrect, and insulting. Congratulations.
I work with the info provided. Feel free to clarify without the snark next time.
The term “weed” is used to mean any plant growing somewhere it is unwanted.
colloquially, sure. But I was reading it from the ecological perspective. Weeds have a specific term there and my mind goes to the times where I pulled out itchy or outright harmful weeds as a kid in my backyard. Tumbleweeds go past “aesthetically unwanted”.
Simply because you have the ability to reach out and rip the plant from the earth and it’s completely powerless to stop you, does that give you the right to do so?
That is nature, yea. I’m not going out of my way to pull out “unwanted flowers” that are otherwise harmless. But there are threat levels, so I will do so for (ecological) weeds.
We’re still animals and we hunt down plants and animals alike. And a few animals hunt us. I don’t complain if a bear starts chasing me down and eats me. That’s just the circle of life. We have issues with overhunting and deforestation, but I don’t disagree with the core issue of “plants are eaten by animals and animals are eaten by animals”
If a more capable form of life saw humans as an invasive species as we seem very likely to kill off the rest of our garden if we remain unchecked and decided to kill us off would you support that?
As a human, no. I will try to preserve my life. But a more capable life form that can reach earth probably has the ability to do whatever it wants. We wouldn’t put up much of a fight against such tech.
I’d hope we could talk it out, but if not… welp, circle of life I guess.
“Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god. Thoughts of a Biologist” ― Jean Rostand
Don’t get me wrong, though. Humans collectively are pretty shitty conquerors. We can do a lot better to preserve life.
Look, February was always missing a few days in the shed. We knew it was inevitable.
But nah, I don’t get it. Moths are pretty chill. maybe I swatted a few in my face, but I don’t go out of my way to squish them.
weeds are removed for good reason, though. they are an invasive species with little value and they will end up killing off the rest of the garden if left unchecked.
The heavy handed metaphor is one plant being a cat and the other a rabid leopard. Even if you love all animals, you and the cats aren’t safe with a leopard wandering around. But I’m sorry that some parents are so impatient with their kids that they can’t break this down to them logically.
Socialize the losses, privatazie the games. It’s crazy when people complain about socialism while these billionaire companies get to reap the best parts of it.
at least you don’t become deadweight in the economy
In theory, yes.
Reality: we already have shit welfare programs and I doubt UBI will fix it. I also doubt we’ll even get to a point of UBI in my remaining career time. At least not without a lot of blood.
The present as is is pretty bad, I’d hope we can fix that before theorycrafting the future. economists 100 years prior theorycrafted 15 hour work weeks, and look how far we’ve come.
It’s more of a vent than a joke. “In private” with trusted friends. If this was something said out loud or even on a public tweet I’d get it. But this seems to fall closer to something like confiding in therapy than that.
Ofc, a trained therapist would understan this is a rant. The AI does not, and the FBI couldn’t care less about context.
22YO, so yeah. That was probably peak Snapchat age for them.
Wow. So Wikimedia is really just a small hedge fund that happens to run the servers for an encyclopedia on the side. I had a hunch they spent a lot more on other non-wikipedia stuff, but for hosting to cost almost 2% of what they invest is eye opening. And makes it all the more petty that they can’t pay their labor. Especially since so much labor is in fact volunteer work.
Curious, what does Wikimedia actually invest in besides Wikipedia? It’s still a non-profit, right?
they are a 3rd party and therefore not liable for the bullshit they spout.
Screw that liability BS so hard. You hire them to represent your company, you need to be accountable for what they do under your payroll.
I just hope the past generation (going on two now) have gotten people to see through the gaslighting and we can rise up against it this time.
only became a problem because Meta made them
Anyone who remember “glassholes” knows this isn’t new. Wearing a camera on your literal eyes is still a step too far in this otherwise compromised world.
But yes, I think the big issue here, as others pointed out, has to do with the nature of the company producing them. That’d be especially important for a place like DEFCON, which is all about securing your data.
If you do it in a way that feels like you’re “just asking questions”, that’s a dishonest gesture often used in alt-right pipelines to astroturf discussions. sealioning is what it’s grown to be called.
If you were being genuine, I’m sorry you weren’t believed. But this is sadly an increasingly common internet tactic out there.